3D Gaming*

[patsu]

Possible issues have been flagged out to them months ago. Large manufacturers who have $$$ to compensate consumers, like Samsung, will look into the potential risks before selling their products. They will get a ton of investigations and law suits should their customers succumb to health issues due to 3D (See Toshiba in US these recent months). These warnings labels are not exactly foolproof legally.

On the consumer side, most people who suffer from headaches and dizziness will stop watching/playing -- except for those gamers who died from exhaustion. They can always switch to 2D to continue.

If the 3D effect cannot be turned off, then it has more cause for concerns.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If the warnings are anything to go by, uses may be limited by family members. Wife pregnant? No more watching 3D TV for 9 months. Baby's born? Can't watch 3D TV until they're 6 years old.

Not that I think any of those are real issues. My concern is that the tech hasn't been properly investigated, knowing how rubbish many scientific studies can be (the research behind mobile phone safety was laughably useless) and that if there are issues with prolonged watching, the current degree of investigation probably won't have picked up on it. We already have some reports of dangers cited by Nintendo. As is typical, no-one is certain, but people want the tech and no-one will wait and make sure. The presence of these disclaimers perhaps highlights the impatience - if it were known to be safe or have dangers, these would be more clearly explained.

 

[patsu]

I don't know why pregnant women can't watch 3D TV. ^_^
Perhaps the manufacturers are afraid they may feel dizzy and fall down later.

I remember the IMAX 3D theaters in Universal Studios and Disney World warn that 3D movies may be scary to young kids. We took our 3 year old to watch the short "Honey I Shrunk the Kid" film. True enough, he screamed for help when the movie opened. We suspect it's because of the explosive sound effect, plus he thought critters were really flying out of the screen.

Other than that, it's mostly the weight of the glasses, and eye fatique (for red/blue 3D glasses) that bothered us. The kid turned 5 a few days ago, and wanted to go watch "How to Train a Dragon 3D" together.

There has been warning about possible long term effect. But the manufacturers are selling 3D ready TV. 3D is only an option. I doubt people can view it for long hours (due to limited content, and clumsy gears at this point). We limit our kid to 1-2 hours of TV every day anyway. I suspect the medical implication of 3DTV will only be apparent when they enter mainstream with daily 3D content, and under sustained use.

BTW, was Nintendo playing with VR googles or 3DTV ?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There has been warning about possible long term effect. But the manufacturers are selling 3D ready TV. 3D is only an option. I doubt people can view it for long hours (due to limited content, and clumsy gears at this point). We limit our kid to 1-2 hours of TV every day anyway.

And I imagine you're in the minority. Plenty enough families will be wall-to-wall TV when not at school/work, over months. I'll be surprised if any investigation comes close to observing the effects of such use. Research so far has probably consisted of putting 3D glasses on cats and timing how long it takes them to solve a Rubics cube, and concluding that 3D glasses cause cancer and make you smarter.

The only real potential hazard I can see is long term neorological/psychological changes with different 3D resolving methods used for 3D TVs than real life. This could potentially cause decreases in judgement in the real world and/or damage vision making it harder to focus. I'd quite happily wait a few more years for The Next Big Thing and have future technologies properly understood, rather than wait for a cataclysmic mistake to highlight the benefits of cautiousness. You can't undo the mistakes once they've happened, but you can prevent them from happening in the first place. Its partly for this that I'll tag behind the tech curve. I let everyone else be the guniea pigs of new technologies for a decade or two!

 

[patsu]

Perhaps, but I seriously doubt that people are going to put on 3D glasses and watch TV all day long. They are rather heavy and much more uncomfortable than normal eye glasses for extended use.

I am more curious about their battery life at the moment.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I read in one of these articles on the new TVs, the Sony's I think, that battery life was listed at 100 hours, ut they didn't mention if that was rechargeable. How the batteries work is quite the issue. It'd be nice if the new electric polymers were ready for these specs.

 

[patsu]

They are supposed to have a charging mat SKU. The reason I ask about the battery life is because I have run into dead battery situation in SonyStyle store twice now. I didn't see any battery life indicator light on the glasses itself.

 

[patsu]

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/ps3-won-t-get-3d-blu-ray-support-in-june-683702

Sony has announced that its 3D firmware update which is being piped to its latest range of Blu-ray players and the PlayStation 3 will not make the PS3 compatible with upcoming 3D Blu-rays.
Instead, the update will ready the console for 3D games, of which there will be four in June.

The PlayStation 3 will eventually get 3D Blu-ray compatibility but this is to come in the form of another firmware update later in the year.

 

[Danalys]

And I imagine you're in the minority. Plenty enough families will be wall-to-wall TV when not at school/work, over months. I'll be surprised if any investigation comes close to observing the effects of such use. Research so far has probably consisted of putting 3D glasses on cats and timing how long it takes them to solve a Rubics cube, and concluding that 3D glasses cause cancer and make you smarter.

The only real potential hazard I can see is long term neorological/psychological changes with different 3D resolving methods used for 3D TVs than real life. This could potentially cause decreases in judgement in the real world and/or damage vision making it harder to focus. I'd quite happily wait a few more years for The Next Big Thing and have future technologies properly understood, rather than wait for a cataclysmic mistake to highlight the benefits of cautiousness. You can't undo the mistakes once they've happened, but you can prevent them from happening in the first place. Its partly for this that I'll tag behind the tech curve. I let everyone else be the guniea pigs of new technologies for a decade or two!

Who knows it might actually have some benefits to vision. might lessen short and long sightedness, because of the slightly shifting focussing, exercising muscles and shape changing lenses in the eye. Forms of stereoscopy have been around since the 19 hundreds so there is some amount of Guinea pigs already. Who had a View master for example?

 

[patsu]

Woah, I don't know about that. Personally, I think the current state of the technology and content availability make it unlikely to be a health hazard for consumers in general.

At the moment, the MotorStorm 2 demo showed me very clearly what I have been missing. There are still some rough edges to work out, but it looks very promising.

 

[Danalys]

You can't deny that this is the wave of the future tho. I mean I know that even the update to using HD cameras for all TV shows is taking a while but 3D just gives more of a impact to general audiences I think. Content providers like film studios and games publishers seem all for it. In the case of film studios they've seen increased profits. So I believe it's inevitable that everything will be in 3D eventually. If there are health problems that can be caused by it, it needs to be investigated right now as much as possible, With an eye towards looking for long term effects from prolonged viewing.

 

[Arwin]

There was far more reason to fear 2d tv would impact out 3d vision and just reading a book or your iPhone is probably worse for your eyes. There's bound to be some effect on some people, but I can't see any of them being particularly adverse beyond people getting nausious.

 

[Danalys]

Well short sightedness only occurs in developed countries precisely because TV and books keeps your eyes at a certain focal length for long periods. There's a genetic component that keeps many from having these problems as a posed to those that do.

With 3D content the worry is that it'll train your brain to learn to recognise objects in a way that clashes with how you would normally perceive them, causing confusion that could be dangerous in the case of driving a car for example.

 

[SG79]

Content providers like film studios and games publishers seem all for it. In the case of film studios they've seen increased profits. So I believe it's inevitable that everything will be in 3D eventually.

Of course they're all for it, solely because of the financial implications in the long run. How long will 3D take to really take off is the question. HDTV as it is isn't even in half of households in the US (46% as of Jan), and the tech has been on the market since the turn of the century.

This will be a slow process if the tech is embraced initially. The requirement to wear shutter glasses is the biggest turn off among early adopters, so it would seem that the push for consumer stereoscopic 3D may be premature. I'll sit this one out until shutter glasses disappear and there is enough 3D content out there. I've been wearing glasses for 4 years now and I don't want to layer them with another pair

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Who knows it might actually have some benefits to vision. might lessen short and long sightedness, because of the slightly shifting focussing, exercising muscles and shape changing lenses in the eye.

Except that's not happening with 3D TVs. To view 3D TVs, the eye orientation is being changed, bring eyes closer together to view 'nearer' objects, but the lens isn't changing shape to focus on different distances, because what you're seeing is at the fixed distance of you screen. To look at a virtual horizon or 1 metre in front of you in a 3D game, your lenses will remain statically focussed at a few metres away. That's going to require an unlearning of the skills required to see in the real world, and there are going to be some consequences. Maybe it'll just be fatigue? Maybe it'll be some messing up of people ability to focus?

If the 3D display model doesn't accurately represent the way the real-world works, requiring eye position and lens shape to change to focus on different distances, no matter what technology is used there'll be affects on the users as they have to learn non-real-life skills to use them.

 

[patsu]

Study: 33% of Box Office Generated by 3D Movies:
http://www.homemediamagazine.com/3-d/study-33-box-office-generated-3d-movies-19015

Hollywood’s 3D renaissance is proving not just to be marketing hype, as major theatrical releases since Avatar in the formerly gimmicky format have accounted for 33% of the total box office, according to a trade group study.

The International 3D Society (I3DS) found that 3D movies have ranked No. 1 at the box office for 10 out of 14 weeks this year. Clash of the Titans, How to Train Your Dragon, Alice in Wonderland and Avatar have generated $1.2 billion in domestic ticket sales out of a total of nearly $3.6 billion.

3D ticket sales for Alice and Dragon have accounted for 65% the films’ domestic revenue and 80% for Avatar – the top grossing movie in history.

Iron Man 2 (May 7) will not be in 3D.

The 3D hype will adjust itself over time. Hopefully the TV guys can benefit from the movement.

 

[el_rika]

The requirement to wear shutter glasses is the biggest turn off among early adopters

I don't think it is that much different from wearing a headset/headphones while playing online and 90% of the gamers do it without any kind of issues.

 

[patsu]

The popular headsets are usually very light. I think the 3D glasses today are too bulky and heavy.

The other problem is probably the need to adjust your focus a little for 3DTV. For some reason, I find MotorStorm 3D easy on my eyes. Super Stardust is more intrusive and glaring on the same TV set. The developers probably need to experiment quite a bit to find the right look.

 

[makattack]

I don't think it is that much different from wearing a headset/headphones while playing online and 90% of the gamers do it without any kind of issues.

All I can say is that for me personally, I will not ever go 3D if they require additional headgear. I've tried it (at PAX East) and they were uncomfortable and incompatible with the Oakley prescription frames I wear (which cost more than the goggles, and give me 20/20 vision) and significantly took away from the image quality I was seeing -- having two filters between you and the source effectively cuts the amount of light reaching your eyes.

I wear a full headset for hours (X4) with no discomfort, but 5 minutes with the 3D goggles at the NVIDIA booth was all I needed to say "no thanks."

 

[tabs]

Did they have a security device on them? I've got a couple of pairs at home me and the missus use. We both find them very comfortable and she has regular glasses underneath. We can and do play for hours.